The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[StefanAVFC]

 Class traitor Hoyle couldn't run a bath, never mind the most important chamber of government

[bickster]

26 minutes ago, Genie said:

It doesn’t mean he shouldn’t also be reprimanded by the Speaker for saying something appalling in the HoC as well.

That really is a dangerous path to go down. It isn't the speakers job to decide such things, he's there to make sure debates are conducted in an orderly fashion (Yes, yes I know) not to tell MPs what opinions they can and can't hold

There are many versions of this quote from various people but I like the Oscar WIlde variant - "“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

He needs to be allowed to say it otherwise this isn't a democracy.

Now if they had a no heckling rule, that would be a different matter and make perfect sense but the content of the heckle shouldn't be an issue
 

[Genie]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

That really is a dangerous path to go down. It isn't the speakers job to decide such things, he's there to make sure debates are conducted in an orderly fashion (Yes, yes I know) not to tell MPs what opinions they can and can't hold

There are many versions of this quote from various people but I like the Oscar WIlde variant - "“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

He needs to be allowed to say it otherwise this isn't a democracy.

Niow if they had a no heckling rule, that would be a different matter and make perfect sense but the content of the heckle shouldn't be an issue
 

The speaker has ejected people for providing evidence that someone has lied and called them a liar.

The speaker allows comments about that vulnerable children under the care of the government being lost to god only knows what is their own fault.

One of those scenarios is part of a sensible debate and one is not.

I’m disgusted by the comment, and disgusted that the speaker seems to think it’s in some way contributing to the debate and is left unchallenged.

I’m embarrassed to be British to the moment.

 

[The Fun Factory]

18 hours ago, bickster said:

I still read that as Doctor Congo

So misunderstood.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

The speaker has ejected people for providing evidence that someone has lied and called them a liar.

The speaker allows comments about that vulnerable children under the care of the government being lost to god only knows what is their own fault.

One of those scenarios is part of a sensible debate and one is not.

I’m disgusted by the comment, and disgusted that the speaker seems to think it’s in some way contributing to the debate and is left unchallenged.

I’m embarrassed to be British to the moment.

 

I don't agree with you. I've explained why, you don't appear to see the difference but what you appear to want isn't a democracy

[Genie]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

I don't agree with you. I've explained why, you don't appear to see the difference but what you appear to want isn't a democracy

I think the exact opposite. 

A member shouldn’t be ejected for pointing out factually that another member had lied and mislead others.

Shouting out a completely ridiculous opinion that children being lost under government care is their own fault is not democracy. The dickhead who said it should have been reminded that not only were they children under UK government care, they also probably had no say in their arrival in the UK in the first place. There is no basis in which that could be construed as an acceptable thing to say in any surrounding, let alone the HoC.

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

I think the exact opposite. 

A member shouldn’t be ejected for pointing out factually that another member had lied and mislead others.

Shouting out a completely ridiculous opinion that children being lost under government care is their own fault is not democracy. The dickhead who said it should have been reminded that not only were they children under UK government care, they also probably had no say in their arrival in the UK in the first place. There is no basis in which that could be construed as an acceptable thing to say in any surrounding, let alone the HoC.

You're entitled to be wrong as is Gullis

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

You're entitled to be wrong as is Gullis

What next? 

It’s her fault she was raped because she was wearing a skirt. Would you be ok with that being said by a politician in the HoC? That’s before including the extra layer of her being under government care at the time.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Genie

[bickster]

Just now, Genie said:

What next? 

It’s her fault she was raped because she was wearing a skirt. Would you be ok with that being said by a politician in the HoC?

Yes, absolutely. You can't censor opinions in the seat of government

[StefanAVFC]

9 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yes, absolutely. You can't censor opinions in the seat of government

Unless it's your opinion that someone else is a liar.

[Genie]

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Unless it's your opinion that someone else is a liar.

and backed up with facts… 

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Unless it's your opinion that someone else is a liar.

I’m with @bicksteron this completely. The rule about calling MPs liars (and a few other phrases) needs changing. Where it’s fact, then that should be permitted. Where it’s opinion, it shouldn’t be.  And those two things are very different.

But in terms of MPs being censored in parliament or punished for airing general unsavoury views, I’m not at all happy with that. 

[ml1dch]

34 minutes ago, Genie said:

What next? 

It’s her fault she was raped because she was wearing a skirt. Would you be ok with that being said by a politician in the HoC? That’s before including the extra layer of her being under government care at the time.

How often are you suggesting that this list of "opinions that the internet will allow MPs to hold" gets updated?

[Davkaus]

17 minutes ago, blandy said:

But in terms of MPs being censored in parliament or punished for airing general unsavoury views, I’m not at all happy with that. 

It's fairly crazy when you consider parliamentary privilege allows them to say things they'd never get away with saying anywhere else about other people. But MPs? You must pretend not to know that the PM is a liar.

I read that the rule goes back to the 19th Century, and was intending to stop MPs challenging each other to duels - a reintroduction to parliamentary duels to the death wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

[snowychap]

44 minutes ago, Genie said:

The dickhead who said it should have been reminded that...

It is very much open to others to remind him of that - MPs can remind him inside and outside the chamber and the whole of the country and world can remind him outside of the chamber by various means.

[StefanAVFC]

 

[Genie]

42 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

How often are you suggesting that this list of "opinions that the internet will allow MPs to hold" gets updated?

It should be nothing to do with the opinions of the internet.

In a sane world I’d expect the exchange to be along the lines of:

1: Up to 200 unoccupied vulnerable children currently waiting for their asylum cases to be reviewed and under government care have vanished, potentially kidnapped. 

2: It’s their own fault, they should not have come here in the first place

Speaker to 2: I’d like to remind you that these are children and that they were under OUR care. They also likely did not have a say in coming here and they deserve to be kept safe whilst we review their cases for asylum. That comment should be withdrawn and an apology issued.

But we don’t.

[ml1dch]

In other "bell-ends in Parliament shouldn't be stopped from saying stupid things in the House of Commons" news, Andrew Bridgen is suing Matt Hancock for £100,000 after Hancock said Bridgen's "worst since the Holocaust" nonsense was anti-semitic.

Keeps the blue-on-blue bubbling nicely. 

[Straggler]

Gullis should be punished for what he said. It should come from within his own ranks. Sunak should meet with him, tell Gullis that hye was vile and does not represent conservative values. Gullis should then be ejected from the party.  

Every day this does not happen is another day when Gullis represents Tory values. Sunak won't do this because he's not got any fight in him. They should be shamed into it, but they have no shame. There are options to punish Gullis but it does require Sunak behaving with integrity, professionalism and accountability. There is more chance he'll win a header against Ming's.

[ml1dch]

57 minutes ago, Genie said:

It should be nothing to do with the opinions of the internet.

In a sane world I’d expect the exchange to be along the lines of:

1: Up to 200 unoccupied vulnerable children currently waiting for their asylum cases to be reviewed and under government care have vanished, potentially kidnapped. 

2: It’s their own fault, they should not have come here in the first place

Speaker to 2: I’d like to remind you that these are children and that they were under OUR care. They also likely did not have a say in coming here and they deserve to be kept safe whilst we review their cases for asylum. That comment should be withdrawn and an apology issued.

But we don’t.

In a sane world, I'd expect people to not hold such shitty opinions in the first place. But as they do, it's not the job of the Speaker of the HoC to tell them that they shouldn't.